United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
SolmeteX, LLC, Plaintiff: Aaron D. Rosenberg, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Daniel J. Lyne, Steven M. Veenema, Murphy & King, PC,
Apavia, LLC, Defendant: David Koha, Julie Rising Bryan,
Casner & Edwards LLP, Boston, MA.
DentalEZ, Inc., RAMVAC Dental Products, Inc., Defendants:
Robert J. Kaler, Holland & Knight LLP, Boston, MA; Steven
L. Caponi, PRO HAC VICE, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE.
AND ORDER ON APAVIA, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No.
S. HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
LLC (Plaintiff) and Apavia, LLC (Apavia or Defendant)
manufacture competing amalgam separators that are used to
remove amalgam particles from dental wastewater streams.
Plaintiff's amalgam separator is sold under the mark
" Hg5." Plaintiff alleges that Apavia, as well as
its distributors, RAMVAC Dental Products, Inc. (RAMVAC) and
DentalEZ, Inc. (DentalEZ), are infringing on Plaintiff's
federally registered trademark by marketing their product
under the name " Amalgam HoG." Apavia moves to
dismiss all claims against it, on the ground that it was not
involved in developing the allegedly
infringing name. For the reasons set forth below,
Apavia's motion (Docket No. 39) is denied.
following facts, taken from Plaintiff's verified
complaint and attached exhibits, are assumed true for the
purposes of this motion. Since 2000, Plaintiff has been
manufacturing and distributing a line of amalgam separators
under the mark " Hg5." The mark was federally
registered in 2002. Enpress, LLC (Enpress), a water
filtration company, is the parent company of Apavia. Between
2013 and 2014, one of Plaintiff's executives provided
confidential information to senior executives of Enpress.
This information included Plaintiff's commission
structures, dealer pricing, manufacturing processes,
manufacturing costs, testing procedures, customer
relationships, and financial results and revenue projections.
Several of these Enpress executives then formed Apavia, which
began manufacturing and selling a new amalgam separator that
competes with the Hg5.
other Defendants, DentalEZ and RAMVAC, are former authorized
resellers of the Hg5. They now resell Apavia's amalgam
separator instead. Plaintiff alleges that, " [o]n a date
as yet uncertain, Apavia approached RAMVAC and DentalEZ with
the intention of using RAMVAC's and DentalEZ's
well-known connection with the Hg5 to market Apavia's
separator using intentionally similar marks." (Docket
No. 1 at ¶ 36.) At the Chicago Dental Society's
Mid-Winter Meeting in February of 2015, Apavia, RAMVAC, and
DentalEZ unveiled the new amalgam separator, calling it the
" Amalgam HoG." The full name of the new product,
as shown on product labels and marketing materials, is "
RAMVAC Amalgam HoG, powered by Apavia." (Docket No. 1-5
October of 2015, Plaintiff brought the instant suit against
Apavia, DentalEZ, and RAMVAC, asserting the following counts
against all Defendants: trademark infringement in violation
of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (count I); false designation of
origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (count II);
state law trademark infringement in violation of Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 110H, § 13 (count III); state law trademark
dilution in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 13
(count IV); and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §
11 (count V). Plaintiff also moved for a preliminary
injunction, which this Court denied in December of 2015,
based on a low likelihood of success on the merits. Apavia
now moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, to dismiss all counts against it.
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, " a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell
A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955,
167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). " A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Detailed factual allegations are not necessary to survive a
motion to dismiss; however, the ...